# Reading Responses (Set 1) ### By Emma Richards ## Set 1 Responses: ### January 26 - Attention What if this digital world we’ve created had more hazards than it does benefits? This is the question author Mary Chayko strives to answer in chapter nine of *Superconnected*. In the chapter, Chayko focuses on the different aspects of the digital world that can be beneficial, or harmful, to humans. The constant connection we have created through the digital world has left us with many reasons to be happy about this connection. The digital world gives us convenient and easy ways to do almost anything. For example, we use the digital world to entertain ourselves, which, according to Chayko, “skills can be honed, information can be obtained, and friendships can be made and solidified” (p. 6). These aspects of the internet have the potential to make people feel more connected, and happier overall. An aspect of the internet that is hazardous for users is that, “it may be becoming difficult for individuals to focus on one thing for an extended time, challenging the modern attention span” (p. 9). A study mentioned by Chayko (p. 10) found that students who check their phones and social media while studying can lead to suffering a GPA and overall study time. This made me wonder, how many times did I check my phone while reading this chapter? What distractions are stopping me from achieving my academic goals? Living in a digital environment due to COVID-19 has made distractions easier than ever. If we get bored during a Zoom class, we can check ourselves back into the digital world without even being noticed by the teacher. Although the internet leaves us connected with our loved ones, provides entertainment, and gives us a wide range of information, what is the cost? Because this digital world is so new, we are just now learning of the mental and even physical hazards the digital world comes with. This chapter left me with the question, if we know of these costs that come with the social world, are we willing to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of digital connectedness? ### February 5 - Fake News Fixing fake news is more than just fact-checking. This claim by author Danah Boyd comes from her research on the damage a piece of fake news can do. Her article, [*Did Media Literacy Backfire?*](https://points.datasociety.net/did-media-literacy-backfire-7418c084d88d#.d46kox6e1) questions the way we get our news, and what everyone defines as “credible”. The fake news cycle is rampant, especially after the 2016 election, and we cannot just stop it by labeling something as “fake news.” Boyd begins by explaining that “The underlying assumption in all of this is that there’s universal agreement that major news outlets like the New York Times, scientific journal publications, and experts with advanced degrees are all highly trustworthy.” Boyd is saying that everyone has their own definition of credible, and we all have reasons why we believe something is truthful. Not everyone is wired to directly identify news from scientists and scholars as trustworthy, and this skewed definition of credibility is how fake news gets its fuel. The gravity of the spread of fake news can be highlighted in an article [by Emily Dreyfuss](https://mediamanipulation.org/case-studies/recontextualized-media-biden-voter-fraud-organization) about the spread of an edited clip of Joe Biden saying his campaign was the “biggest voter fraud organization this country has ever seen." When the fake video clip was posted, it took less than 24 hours for the clip to be seen by a cumulative audience of over 100 million. Despite the fact that the video was eventually identified as fake, how do we go about undoing the damage it has caused? This brings me back to Danah Boyd’s point that “no simple band-aid will work.” With such a large audience seeing this in such a short span of time, we can’t individually reach out to those 100 million people and tell them it was fake. And even if that was possible, would they even believe it? Would they just think they’re being told it’s fake so that the Biden campaign can save face? Therefore, Boyd concludes her article with uncertainty about the future of information, “The path forward is hazy. We need to enable people to hear different perspectives and make sense of a very complicated — and in many ways, overwhelming — information landscape.” This leaves me with the question, where do we even start? ### February 16 - Cooperation Cooperation is the key to success, but is the root of collaboration self-interest? This is what I found myself asking after reading [Martin Nowak’s *Why We Help*](https://reagle.org/joseph/2021/cda/readings/nowak-2012-we-help.pdf) on the human nature of collaboration. Nowak walks readers through the five mechanisms of cooperation among humans and other animal species and explains how cooperative communities grew from defection. The five mechanisms include direct reciprocity, cooperation in clumps and groups, sacrifices for our blood lines, for our reputations, and cooperation for the greater good (pp. 37-38). The mechanism that stood out to me the most was that we cooperate for our reputations. This relates to game theory, which [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem#Theories) defines, “Game theory assumes that individuals are rational actors motivated to maximize their utilities.” It is how we are motivated to cooperate and contribute to communities to maximize our own benefits later on. Reputation mechanisms and game theory assume that we only cooperate out of our own self-interest, which is the opposite of the selfless individuals we try and portray ourselves as. On social media, our timelines are flooded with influences contributing to charities, paying for the person behind them at the drive thru, and helping their neighbors shovel their snowy driveways. But why are these things on our timelines? Nowak makes the striking point that people are more generous when they feel they are being watched (p. 39). We post our contributions to society because we want others to see how great we are, that we are selfless, and generous. But are we really? The root of these actions is to boost our own reputations, which at its core is self-interest driven. If our reputation didn’t matter, would collaboration fall apart completely? Nowak claims we have shifted to behaviors where selflessness prevails, but I believe our own self-interest is pulling all the strings, deep down somewhere in our core. ### February 19 - Social Networks We all have friends online, but this network of people is more important than it looks at first glance. Howard Rheingold highlights the importance of these networks in chapter 5 of his book, *Social Has a Shape: Why Networks Matter.* The chapter walks readers through the complexities and connections we make within our social networks, the way this distribution looks according to different sociological perspectives, and Reigngold’s investigation into the importance and implications of our social networks. Rheingold brings up an important point made by sociologist Mark Granovetter, that “everybody in a highly clustered, homophilous network tends to get the same news, and it is more likely that everybody in a clique (the actual technical term sociologists use) will have the same opinions and access to the same information” (p. 206). This point made by Granovetter leads back to the discussion we had in class about how filter bubbles and echo chambers cause our social networks to be isolated to the same opinion, which can be dangerous, and cause extreme cases of groupthink. Another important point the chapter brings up is that social networks abolish absent ties. When we leave a community, we can keep the members with us through our social networks, even once we've physically moved from one place to another (p. 206). This gives us the possibility to continually expand our social networks through time. More people within our social networks opens more windows of opportunity. These windows could lead to job opportunities, new intimate relationships, and organizations. Although social networks come with benefits and drawbacks, I believe the benefits of increased socialization within these networks outweigh the disadvantages. If users can utilize their networks to expand their social outreach, they are benefiting themselves greatly in the long run when these connections make themselves useful (p. 211). What we do with our social networks is how we reap the rewards of increased social capacity. ### March 9 - Manipulated If I were to go online to Amazon or Google to read reviews for a new appliance or the next best gadget, it’s very likely that about a third of the reviews I read will be fake. In chapter 3 of his book *[Manipulated](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/1cubrkat/release/20)*, author Joseph Reagle cites two studies about fake reviews. The first, by Bing Liu, found that about ⅓ of all consumer reviews on the web were fake (para. 12). In the second, researchers found that between 10 to 30 percent of online reviews are fake (para. 16). Comments and reviews have a huge influence on consumers, so how do we know if what we’re reading is fake? Fake reviews can be produced by *fakers*, *takers*, or *makers*. The fakers review their own work or others, makers will so for a fee, and the takers are those who avail themselves of such services (para. 16). Fakery can be used to boost or slander a product’s credibility, as it’s been found that better reviews are associated with better sales (para. 9). Knowing that reviews have such a huge influence on products makes the fake review world that much more dangerous. As a consumer, it is becoming increasingly hard to believe what we’re reading. Joseph Reagle explains how social graphs can help consumers better understand the products they want. Social graphs involve getting reviews from friends and people you know, instead of strangers on the internet. This way, people no longer have to fear the manipulation from strangers (para. 54). Websites that host reviews are also cracking down on getting rid of the fakes. But is it enough? [Danah Boyd](https://points.datasociety.net/agnotology-and-epistemological-fragmentation-56aa3c509c6b)’s argument about fake content that we previously discussed in class is that the “culture of doubt and critique, experience over expertise, and personal responsibility” is leading to tribalism (p. 1). If we enter a time where we can’t even trust the reviews we read on products, will this tribalism begin to exist in the world of retail? Reviews are a principal part of the online shopping experience, but if the experience as we know it is now being manipulated by fakes, where will we be if the fakes don’t end. How can we know what we’re reading is trustworthy? There are ways to detect a fake article, but will we need a whole new set of skills for the online retail world?